Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Monday, July 22, 2019
Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Conflict between Board Members
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/29/2019 8:17 AM  
Is there such a thing as "due process" when it comes to conflicts between board members?

I was told by the manager that IDR was not available to me for something like this.

We have no internal process that is in the by-laws, and no one seems to want acknowledge that which is in our adopted Parliamentary Process.

Does anyone have any suggestions or experiences with this kind of thing?


GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:3050


06/29/2019 9:29 AM  
I don't think you understand the term "due process". Due process is what you're afforded the chance to defend yourself at a proceding where you're otherwise subject to some penalty. This occurs in instances where you're accused of doing something wrong.

Your brief description sounds like a personal problem. If so you're just going to have to deal with it. Why on earth do you need a resolution process for a simple dispute between equals on a board of directors? There's no one coming to rescue you. It's up to you to work it out.
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:299


06/29/2019 9:34 AM  
I've never seen anything spelled out that has any legal force - it's more of an ethics or code of conduct thing. One objection I've seen to board codes of conduct is that they're not enforceable.

About the only thing I've seen that works is to establish a board culture that encourages proper behavior and do your best to maintain it. Unfortunately, with smaller boards it doesn't take more than one or two folks to derail things. At that point, you have to hope that their bad behavior begins to have negative consequences for enough owners to vote them off the board.
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/29/2019 9:43 AM  
Posted By CathyA3 on 06/29/2019 9:34 AM
I've never seen anything spelled out that has any legal force - it's more of an ethics or code of conduct thing. One objection I've seen to board codes of conduct is that they're not enforceable.

About the only thing I've seen that works is to establish a board culture that encourages proper behavior and do your best to maintain it. Unfortunately, with smaller boards it doesn't take more than one or two folks to derail things. At that point, you have to hope that their bad behavior begins to have negative consequences for enough owners to vote them off the board.




Ok... so no due process, and it's a personal problem... got it.
So... I guess I should have been told that by someone on my side, because what I was told when I asked for help, was that meeting in Executive session was my only option,
and once there, I was badgered by the Association lawyer, the manager, the person I had the conflict wit,h and was cross-examined as if I was at some kind of bogus trial... and I was the one who had the complaints.

I at one point, apologized for crying in a previous meeting (it was in frustration, due to the person's ongoing abusive behavior) and because I have ptsd I can be emotionally sensitive under high stress), and then the entire board,
the association lawyer, and the manager proceeded to talk openly about my mental health, and whether or not I could get thrown off the board for having a symptom of occasional extra emotional sensitivity.

Does this change anything?

NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/29/2019 9:46 AM  
oops... sorry, quoted the wrong reply
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/29/2019 9:46 AM  
oops... sorry, quoted the wrong reply
MarkW18
(Florida)

Posts:45


06/29/2019 9:58 AM  
Posted By NicoleS10 on 06/29/2019 8:17 AM
Is there such a thing as "due process" when it comes to conflicts between board members?

I was told by the manager that IDR was not available to me for something like this.

We have no internal process that is in the by-laws, and no one seems to want acknowledge that which is in our adopted Parliamentary Process.

Does anyone have any suggestions or experiences with this kind of thing?





Yes there is, it is called IDR ( Internal Dispute Resolution.

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Internal-Dispute-Resolution
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:8300


06/29/2019 9:59 AM  
May not like what have to say. It's not personal or to hurt your feelings. Sometimes a 3rd eye is needed to get you out of the forest.

It sounds like your coming off as an "emotional sucker". A person who uses their emotions to suck out attention of others or to get what they want. You may not know your doing it. I am just saying what these people are treating or viewing you as. At some point people put their foot down and simply say "no more".

I see it all the time with some people. Call it "I got a bone in my leg" syndrome. Everyone has issues but how you deal with them is the difference. I find people who are "emotional" drainers are usually giving up some kind of medical reason for their behavior. Oh I am taking medication that causes me to be emotional... etc...

People are going to tell you "Suck it up buttercup". It's at this point you need to look at yourself and ask "Am I playing victim or being victim?". What do you want it to be?

The reality is that this is a personality conflict. It gets resolved like any other one does. You accepting your role in the conflict and then looking for a way to work that out. It may mean playing less on the emotional and sticking to the facts.

Former HOA President
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:299


06/29/2019 10:14 AM  
One thing I've found helpful when having to deal with dysfunctional or confrontational behavior, either from homeowners or other board members, is to conduct all communications in writing with other relevant persons copied. No unscripted give and take, and always have witnesses of some sort (witnesses tend to discourage abusive one-on-one behavior). Official association business should be conducted in writing anyway, so it's good practice as well as smart.

Regardless of your personal behavior or alleged mental state, if your description of the executive session is accurate, the other board members and attorney were out of line. In addition, if the situation is serious enough to involve the attorney, they were unwise to put themselves in a position where emotions can run high and unscripted responses can fly (see paragraph 1).

Do you have any recourse? Probably not, but I'm not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt. I am a big believer in walking away from situations where the benefit does not justify the amount of pain needed to achieve said benefit. You're a volunteer, you can walk away from this, enjoy your home and not worry about things you can't control. In your position, I would be thinking hard abut doing exactly that.
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/29/2019 10:15 AM  
Posted By MelissaP1 on 06/29/2019 9:59 AM
May not like what have to say. It's not personal or to hurt your feelings. Sometimes a 3rd eye is needed to get you out of the forest.

It sounds like your coming off as an "emotional sucker". A person who uses their emotions to suck out attention of others or to get what they want. You may not know your doing it. I am just saying what these people are treating or viewing you as. At some point people put their foot down and simply say "no more".

I see it all the time with some people. Call it "I got a bone in my leg" syndrome. Everyone has issues but how you deal with them is the difference. I find people who are "emotional" drainers are usually giving up some kind of medical reason for their behavior. Oh I am taking medication that causes me to be emotional... etc...

People are going to tell you "Suck it up buttercup". It's at this point you need to look at yourself and ask "Am I playing victim or being victim?". What do you want it to be?

The reality is that this is a personality conflict. It gets resolved like any other one does. You accepting your role in the conflict and then looking for a way to work that out. It may mean playing less on the emotional and sticking to the facts.






The thing is, I am not overly emotional in meetings... I became emotional when a job I was doing for several years was eliminated.
This action was initiated by the person I have the conflict with after, I held him to the same standards as the person before him, who had tried
to overstep his power in relation to the job I was doing. HE told me not to tolerate it from that person, then he took over that person's job and then tried to
do the same thing, and I held him to the same standard he told me to apply to the situation... and in doing so, I pissed him off.

The very next thing he did, at the very next meeting, without it being on the agenda to even talk about, was come up with a reason to eliminate a job I had
dedicated myself to, spent two years educating myself for, and was good at. At subsequent meetings afterwards, he proceeded to tell me how I was doing the
job the wrong way the whole time anyway, even though no one had ever had any complaints.

No one ever goes against the things he brings to the table, and he knew no one would in this case either.
Things have been bad ever since.
GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:3050


06/29/2019 10:19 AM  
Posted By MarkW18 on 06/29/2019 9:58 AM
Yes there is, it is called IDR ( Internal Dispute Resolution.

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Internal-Dispute-Resolution


Well I'm not in California so I'll leave the discussion to others, but that page indicates an IDR is for, "resolving disputes between the association and its members". A dispute between board members is a horse of a different color.
AugustinD


Posts:1791


06/29/2019 10:27 AM  
The question I want to see this forum answer is whether California Civil Codes Sections 5910 and 5915 apply when there is a dispute between a director in the minority and a board majority. Links to the two statutes appear at the end.

Conflicts can arise between board directors about whether the board is complying with the governing documents and state law. E.g. suppose, in an extreme instance, a board majority votes to deny all members all records. California statute at Civil Code 5915 and 5910 appears to require that any HOA "party" who has a dispute must follow certain steps ("internal dispute resolution" or "IDR") to attempt to resolve the dispute within the HOA. Does this include disputes between directors?

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5915#axzz2CgHrcBrn

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5910#axzz2CgHrcBrn
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:299


06/29/2019 10:33 AM  
Posted By AugustinD on 06/29/2019 10:27 AM
The question I want to see this forum answer is whether California Civil Codes Sections 5910 and 5915 apply when there is a dispute between a director in the minority and a board majority. Links to the two statutes appear at the end.

Conflicts can arise between board directors about whether the board is complying with the governing documents and state law. E.g. suppose, in an extreme instance, a board majority votes to deny all members all records. California statute at Civil Code 5915 and 5910 appears to require that any HOA "party" who has a dispute must follow certain steps ("internal dispute resolution" or "IDR") to attempt to resolve the dispute within the HOA. Does this include disputes between directors?

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5915#axzz2CgHrcBrn

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5910#axzz2CgHrcBrn




I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to play one on the internet. I'd opine that if a board votes to not comply with legal documents, it's a legal issue and legal action is probably the appropriate option. A dispute between two directors seems to be a civil matter at best unless one or both do something that would require getting the law involved.
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:299


06/29/2019 10:39 AM  
Posted By CathyA3 on 06/29/2019 10:33 AM
Posted By AugustinD on 06/29/2019 10:27 AM
The question I want to see this forum answer is whether California Civil Codes Sections 5910 and 5915 apply when there is a dispute between a director in the minority and a board majority. Links to the two statutes appear at the end.

Conflicts can arise between board directors about whether the board is complying with the governing documents and state law. E.g. suppose, in an extreme instance, a board majority votes to deny all members all records. California statute at Civil Code 5915 and 5910 appears to require that any HOA "party" who has a dispute must follow certain steps ("internal dispute resolution" or "IDR") to attempt to resolve the dispute within the HOA. Does this include disputes between directors?

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5915#axzz2CgHrcBrn

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5910#axzz2CgHrcBrn


I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to play one on the internet. I'd opine that if a board votes to not comply with legal documents, it's a legal issue and legal action is probably the appropriate option. A dispute between two directors seems to be a civil matter at best unless one or both do something that would require getting the law involved.




Never mind, I just wrote nonsense. :-) I'll be quiet while others answer Augustin's question which is an interesting one.
MarkW18
(Florida)

Posts:45


06/29/2019 11:34 AM  
Posted By AugustinD on 06/29/2019 10:27 AM
The question I want to see this forum answer is whether California Civil Codes Sections 5910 and 5915 apply when there is a dispute between a director in the minority and a board majority. Links to the two statutes appear at the end.

Conflicts can arise between board directors about whether the board is complying with the governing documents and state law. E.g. suppose, in an extreme instance, a board majority votes to deny all members all records. California statute at Civil Code 5915 and 5910 appears to require that any HOA "party" who has a dispute must follow certain steps ("internal dispute resolution" or "IDR") to attempt to resolve the dispute within the HOA. Does this include disputes between directors?

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5915#axzz2CgHrcBrn

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5910#axzz2CgHrcBrn



The answer is YES!
AugustinD


Posts:1791


06/29/2019 1:15 PM  
Posted By MarkW18 on 06/29/2019 11:34 AM
Posted By AugustinD on 06/29/2019 10:27 AM
The question I want to see this forum answer is whether California Civil Codes Sections 5910 and 5915 apply when there is a dispute between a director in the minority and a board majority. Links to the two statutes appear at the end.

Conflicts can arise between board directors about whether the board is complying with the governing documents and state law. E.g. suppose, in an extreme instance, a board majority votes to deny all members all records. California statute at Civil Code 5915 and 5910 appears to require that any HOA "party" who has a dispute must follow certain steps ("internal dispute resolution" or "IDR") to attempt to resolve the dispute within the HOA. Does this include disputes between directors?

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5915#axzz2CgHrcBrn

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5910#axzz2CgHrcBrn



The answer is YES!


This is my position as well. If a board majority is violating the law, then the minority directors are still members. As members the minority directors may seek IDR. For example, the directors in the minority may submit a formal complaint to the HOA, pursuant to Civil Code . For the example I gave, "the HOA" here will be the board majority. The use of IDR will require due process for all parties.

I thought I saw some case law not long ago, where the HOA said one of the directors did not have standing to sue to enforce the covenants. The court said, 'Wrong. The director in question is also a member. Just because the member happens to win a seat on the board, he does not give up his member rights.'
BillH10
(Texas)

Posts:374


06/29/2019 3:34 PM  
I'm wondering if too much is being read into this.

The OP said in part in her message of 6/29/19 6:14 PM " I became emotional when a job I was doing for several years was eliminated. This action was initiated by the person I have the conflict with . . . ."

Based on what has been posted, this does not sound to me like the OP's position is the Board is not in compliance with Governing Documents, or laws or codes. This sounds to me like a "neighbor-to-neighbor" type dispute in which one party has done something (eliminated a position) which upset the other party.

Nichole, can you be more specific as to what job or position was eliminated? If, for example, you were holding one of the officer roles described in your documents, only the process which put you in that position can remove you. In other words, if the other directors elected you, a majority must agree you will no longer hold that position. If you were appointed, the position which appointed you would have to "un-appoint" you.

However, if the position is spelled out in your governing documents, absent empowering language no single person can eliminate the position; a revision to the documents would be required.

They way you phrased the issue, it almost sounds like a manager and supervised employee situation. I'm having difficulty envisioning the scenario in which this would exist between co-equal members of a board of directors.

Regardless, I will say I am in complete agreement with whomever posted that those in the meeting with you were very much out of line.
AugustinD


Posts:1791


06/29/2019 4:05 PM  
Posted By NicoleS10 on 06/29/2019 9:43 AM
[snip for brevity] because I have ptsd I can be emotionally sensitive under high stress), and then the entire board,
the association lawyer, and the manager proceeded to talk openly about my mental health, and whether or not I could get thrown off the board for having a symptom of occasional extra emotional sensitivity.


If I were in the OP's shoes, and if I had all the money in the world, I would seriously consider hiring an attorney to write a single letter to the HOA. It would briefly question the board, manager and HOA attorney about how this 'discussion' gave every appearance of indicating the HOA's hostility to the OP on the basis of disability. Just to help keep it from every happening again.

I think anyone engaging in HOA issues is stuck with having a thick skin or suffering mightily. But when a group at one's place of residence indicates its hostility to having someone with possibly a bona fide disability on the board, then this may be a Fair Housing Act problem. Suppose the OP had a speech impediment and struggled to speak clearly. Suppose the Board then discussed her fitness for serving on the board, and the directors asked whether the OP could be thrown off the board for this disability. Pfft.

I am not sure where to draw the lines here between rude behavior; possibly unlawful behavior; and the inevitable reality that conflict is the norm at many HOAs. For now, 'just sayin': I am with others in objecting to this fifth grade like behavior. The instant someone speculated aloud about whether a board member could get thrown off for having PTSD, the HOA attorney should have shut down the discussion.
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/29/2019 5:25 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 06/29/2019 4:05 PM
Posted By NicoleS10 on 06/29/2019 9:43 AM
[snip for brevity] because I have ptsd I can be emotionally sensitive under high stress), and then the entire board,
the association lawyer, and the manager proceeded to talk openly about my mental health, and whether or not I could get thrown off the board for having a symptom of occasional extra emotional sensitivity.


If I were in the OP's shoes, and if I had all the money in the world, I would seriously consider hiring an attorney to write a single letter to the HOA. It would briefly question the board, manager and HOA attorney about how this 'discussion' gave every appearance of indicating the HOA's hostility to the OP on the basis of disability. Just to help keep it from every happening again.

I think anyone engaging in HOA issues is stuck with having a thick skin or suffering mightily. But when a group at one's place of residence indicates its hostility to having someone with possibly a bona fide disability on the board, then this may be a Fair Housing Act problem. Suppose the OP had a speech impediment and struggled to speak clearly. Suppose the Board then discussed her fitness for serving on the board, and the directors asked whether the OP could be thrown off the board for this disability. Pfft.

I am not sure where to draw the lines here between rude behavior; possibly unlawful behavior; and the inevitable reality that conflict is the norm at many HOAs. For now, 'just sayin': I am with others in objecting to this fifth grade like behavior. The instant someone speculated aloud about whether a board member could get thrown off for having PTSD, the HOA attorney should have shut down the discussion.




*
*
*

To be fair, at the time, I only mentioned the symptom (emotional "spilling" or what could be called an overwhelming emotional response sometimes, if under high stress), and the name of the disorder (emotional dysregulation disorder),
as I was afraid that I would get the reaction that many who have PTSD and are not in a stereotypical position to have acquired it, and I did not want to explain the difference between PTSD and C-PTSD (I have the latter) since that
would be a lot of unpleasant information I really didn't want to share with these people. I did inform them of the C-PTSD after the meeting, but no details regarding how it came about (serious TMI).

In the moment it happened... the comments during the meeting, it was extremely embrarassing, highly stressing, humiliating, violating... as I was only offering an apology,
and some context in case they were confused about what had happened in the very recent past. I didn't exepct a conversation to result from it to go that direction, but it did.
No one shut it down, but I should have, in retrospect. That event has affected me negatively ever since it happened. Ignorance, misunderstanding and stigmatization is common, however.

C-PTSD is considered a disability, as are other conditions I am affected by, but I am not on State or Federal disability because the other aforementioned conditions (reproductive disorders, severe fibromyalgia, and others)
took me out of the 9-5 workforce since 2007, and at the time I applied (much later), I was told I was not eligible, because that much of a lapse made whatever contributions I had made working full-time in previous years, irrelevant.

I only found out about the C-PTSD within the past year, and what's involved with the discovery and internal processing of that particular disorder is in itself, highly distressing, and to some, me included, a significantly traumatic event of it's own.

NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/29/2019 5:30 PM  
Posted By BillH10 on 06/29/2019 3:34 PM
I'm wondering if too much is being read into this.

The OP said in part in her message of 6/29/19 6:14 PM " I became emotional when a job I was doing for several years was eliminated. This action was initiated by the person I have the conflict with . . . ."

Based on what has been posted, this does not sound to me like the OP's position is the Board is not in compliance with Governing Documents, or laws or codes. This sounds to me like a "neighbor-to-neighbor" type dispute in which one party has done something (eliminated a position) which upset the other party.

Nichole, can you be more specific as to what job or position was eliminated? If, for example, you were holding one of the officer roles described in your documents, only the process which put you in that position can remove you. In other words, if the other directors elected you, a majority must agree you will no longer hold that position. If you were appointed, the position which appointed you would have to "un-appoint" you.

However, if the position is spelled out in your governing documents, absent empowering language no single person can eliminate the position; a revision to the documents would be required.

They way you phrased the issue, it almost sounds like a manager and supervised employee situation. I'm having difficulty envisioning the scenario in which this would exist between co-equal members of a board of directors.

Regardless, I will say I am in complete agreement with whomever posted that those in the meeting with you were very much out of line.





It was not employee/employer. It was an appointed position.

I can't really elaborate on it more, however, without writing a book.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:8436


06/29/2019 5:41 PM  
Nicole

My initial blush is you have to many emotional issues to be in any position of decision making such as on a HOA BOD.
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/29/2019 6:00 PM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 06/29/2019 5:41 PM
Nicole

My initial blush is you have to many emotional issues to be in any position of decision making such as on a HOA BOD.





Things were fine for several years before I angered this person and became their target.

Plus... what you're saying? Sounds a bit discriminatory. Almost everyone on this planet has "emotional issues".

Who should be the judge of such things?
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/29/2019 6:00 PM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 06/29/2019 5:41 PM
Nicole

My initial blush is you have to many emotional issues to be in any position of decision making such as on a HOA BOD.





Things were fine for several years before I angered this person and became their target.

Plus... what you're saying? Sounds a bit discriminatory. Almost everyone on this planet has "emotional issues".

Who should be the judge of such things?
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3464


06/29/2019 11:02 PM  
Hi Nicole

I don't want to read facts into your situation that aren't there. Yet the information you provided leaves me wondering about a number of things In my limited experience, lawyers are rarely present at Board meetings. I'd like to understand that a bit better.

Was it unusual for the lawyer to be at the meeting? Who brought the lawyer in? For what objective? What was the lawyer's role supposed to be at the meeting?

While the process that occurred was obviously distressing for you, I'm trying to understand something different. What was the Board attempting to accomplish by having the lawyer present? They might have failed in that objective, but there must have been a specific purpose unless having a lawyer present is common practice in your association..

Je publie un degagement de toutes responsabilite. Read all posts at your own risk.
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/30/2019 1:40 AM  
Do you have a private email I could speak to you at?
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/30/2019 1:41 AM  
Posted By NpS on 06/29/2019 11:02 PM
Hi Nicole

I don't want to read facts into your situation that aren't there. Yet the information you provided leaves me wondering about a number of things In my limited experience, lawyers are rarely present at Board meetings. I'd like to understand that a bit better.

Was it unusual for the lawyer to be at the meeting? Who brought the lawyer in? For what objective? What was the lawyer's role supposed to be at the meeting?

While the process that occurred was obviously distressing for you, I'm trying to understand something different. What was the Board attempting to accomplish by having the lawyer present? They might have failed in that objective, but there must have been a specific purpose unless having a lawyer present is common practice in your association..





Sorry, I forgot to include this quote... do you have a private email I can speak to you at?
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3464


06/30/2019 5:17 AM  
[email protected]

Je publie un degagement de toutes responsabilite. Read all posts at your own risk.
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/30/2019 4:12 PM  
Posted By AugustinD on 06/29/2019 1:15 PM
Posted By MarkW18 on 06/29/2019 11:34 AM
Posted By AugustinD on 06/29/2019 10:27 AM
The question I want to see this forum answer is whether California Civil Codes Sections 5910 and 5915 apply when there is a dispute between a director in the minority and a board majority. Links to the two statutes appear at the end.

Conflicts can arise between board directors about whether the board is complying with the governing documents and state law. E.g. suppose, in an extreme instance, a board majority votes to deny all members all records. California statute at Civil Code 5915 and 5910 appears to require that any HOA "party" who has a dispute must follow certain steps ("internal dispute resolution" or "IDR") to attempt to resolve the dispute within the HOA. Does this include disputes between directors?

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5915#axzz2CgHrcBrn

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Statutes/Civil-Code-5910#axzz2CgHrcBrn



The answer is YES!


This is my position as well. If a board majority is violating the law, then the minority directors are still members. As members the minority directors may seek IDR. For example, the directors in the minority may submit a formal complaint to the HOA, pursuant to Civil Code . For the example I gave, "the HOA" here will be the board majority. The use of IDR will require due process for all parties.

I thought I saw some case law not long ago, where the HOA said one of the directors did not have standing to sue to enforce the covenants. The court said, 'Wrong. The director in question is also a member. Just because the member happens to win a seat on the board, he does not give up his member rights.'





Ok, but here's the thing...

Let's say me and another board member have an interpersonal conflict.
Let's say I request IDR.
When the Association Attorney shows up to IDR, who is he representing, exactly?
If no Assocation rule is associated with the situation, then that seems to change the
whole idea of Due Process.

In the case where a CC&R rule is broken, and if I as a homeowner was notified of this (and given 10 days to fix it)
and then somehow it was more complicated, and if I requested IDR, the attorney, if they showed up
would be on the side of the Assocation, but this is not that.


This has already happened twice, where there was supposed to be a "conflict resolution"
topic to address an interpersonal issue I had with another board member, and even though
it was not a board issue, and attorney acted as if he was defending the Assocation President,
who is just another board member, but who I believe abuses their power.


This month again, I see this same topic on the agenda, not put there by me, and I asked what it is about, and I am being
stonewalled.
I wrote that I will not be put in a situation resembling the ones before, and have gotten no
response. It has ruined my entire weekend, I've gotten almost no sleep in over three days over this.

Does someone who is accused of something not have the right to know what they are accused of?
Our parliamentary rules have the outline for a Trial, and how to go about it, but they are not
interested in the process, even though our PR (Robert's Rules) are formally adopted.

I do not feel safe going to such a meeting, and I am finding it hard to trust any of the people who I
am supposed to be able to trust as a board member. I think they want to get me there so they can
put me on the spot with no preparation (again) to embarass, humiliate, and intimidate me, so that I will quit.
I think the Manager, the President, and perhaps one other person who is very loyal to the president
is trying to do all they can to squeeze me out, plain and simple.

MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:8300


06/30/2019 4:51 PM  
Who says your supposed to trust a board member? Your dealing with your neighbors NOT professionals. It's like an adult version of the school yard playground.

Something still tell me there is some level of "emotional" hostage taking going on here.

Former HOA President
NicoleS10
(California)

Posts:42


06/30/2019 4:55 PM  
Posted By MelissaP1 on 06/30/2019 4:51 PM
Who says your supposed to trust a board member? Your dealing with your neighbors NOT professionals. It's like an adult version of the school yard playground.

Something still tell me there is some level of "emotional" hostage taking going on here.




Yes but the board member in question has the assistance of the manager and the HOA attorney seemingly at their disposal.

Emotional hostage? If that is anyone, it is me, but maybe if you explain, what you mean will be clearer.
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Conflict between Board Members



Get 2 months of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!



News Articles Provided by: Community Associations Network
News, articles and blogs about condos/HOA's

Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.







General Legal Notice:  The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com.  Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.  HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional.  HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
HindmanSanchez Legal Notice:  (For messages posted by HindmanSanchez) This message has been prepared by HindmanSanchez for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Members of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send us confidential information unless you speak with one of our attorneys and get authorization to send that information to us. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in our firm. Our attorneys are licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado only.

Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)

Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement